Arguing against "Evolution" = Falling into a Trap
Don't get into arguments about Evolution.The doctrine of "Evolution" or modern "Darwinism" is actually a composite of two distinct things - one of which is scientific and has a lot of empirical evidence to support it, the other of which is pure speculation.
I'm talking about Genetic Mutation + Natural Selection (Darwin's actual hypothesis, which is supported by a huge amount of observation), and Life From Chemicals (never demonstrated).
Here's a diagram:
You should never argue against these two things as if they were one thing. When you do that you end up looking unscientific (because you end up arguing against things that are scientific), and you help your opponent link "Life from Chemicals" with real science.
The Catholic Church and the Church of England have finally figured this out, two hundred years after they drove science and the scientific method into the hands of atheist ideology at sword point.
Don't argue against "Evolution". It's a trap. Clearly define the situation and the terms of discussion.
Search
Srila Prabhupada:
"The policy of maintaining a white elephant is not good. How to distribute these books all over the world - that is the immediate important business. Quickly distribute all the books as soon as they are received."
Comments
Evolution
I completely agree. Even in the Bhagavatam there is no clear evidence against the evolution of species. There is a lot of generic explanation how the universe was first populated by the prajapatis, but by which method exactly all the other planets including the earth were filled up with a variety of different species is just not mentioned. So we shouldn't unnecessarily argue against something which we cannot even prove from scripture.
ys mm